Goody Two Rule: Should nationality trump meritocracy?
Over the years, International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) has undergone much criticism over the rules it has instated pertinent to, for example, minimum age requirements and the current two per country limitation.
With the Olympic Qualifiers happening all around us, the ‘two per country’ rule has been surfacing frequently, spelling delight for some and irritation for others.
The rule, stripped down to basics, ensures that the number of gymnasts who qualify for the all-round and event finals does not exceed two for any given country.
In effect, we have seen Kat Driscoll of Great Britain, qualifying for the trampoline championships despite placing ninth in Birmingham this month.
Lying just on the periphery of the top eight qualifying ranks, Driscoll was allowed the first inlet when it was discovered that China has taken up 50 percent of the top eight positions.
Regardless of how well the Chinese gymnasts perform, they can only earn two berths at the Olympics for trampoline.
While celebrations ensued in Great Britain, and all media turned to laud and support Driscoll, it became easier to overlook the two that got left behind.
In the Beijing 2004 Olympic Games, Russian gymnast Ksenia Afanasyeva suffered from the same misfortune. Despite a rank as high as the 6th position, she was unable to make it to the finals, courtesy the two-per-country rule.
In my opinion, the two per country rule is inevitably complicating the competition and adulterating the patriotic spirit by putting up participants in fiercer competition with their fellow country representatives.
Afanasyeva failed to reach the event finals merely because fellow Russian gymnasts, Semenova and Pavlova, finished before her.
How is it fair for a person, who made the qualifying top eight, to watch a 9th or 10th placer glide past them and claim the Olympic berth, merely because they belong to a different nation?
The qualification system is in place to ensure that meritocracy dictates the cut-offs and does just that through the top eight qualifying criteria, until the two per country rule comes along and throws its wrench in.
FIG President, Bruno Grandi’s aim is to allow for a wider range of countries participating in the Olympics.
Now I am all for inclusion, but the Olympics stand for superior athletic ability, not national variety. While I realise the importance of promoting the sport, I condemn handing out berths like candy.
Participants enter the competition fully aware that they will win or lose as per their comparative skill. But their standing should be determined wholly by their own skill level, and not by a stroke of “nationality luck”.
These are important achievements that need to be “earned” by demonstrating exceptional skills in the field, and are not to be attained by fluke.
This is not to say that the gymnasts who land outside of the top eight group are void of potential or skill. Indeed, they are very competent, but there are others more deserving than them.
The two per country rule is not the only way of safeguarding the participation of more countries and preventing clean sweeps, another theory this proponent of meritocracy fails to understand.
Excuse my lack of intelligence but how is one country securing all three medals any different from the medals going to three different countries? Assuming the judges were not politically motivated, in eventuality the prize is going to the best athlete, regardless
of nation of origin. Again, it is a tournament, not a distribution.
The FIG will be nominating one male and one female gymnast from the host country in case that its representatives are unable to secure a place during qualification rounds.
Then there is the wild card selection of one gymnast from the International Olympics Committee (IOC). And let us not forget the Olympic test event which gives the participating nations a second chance at securing a berth for their country.
Personally, I would prefer to go back to the three per country rule even, since it allows for at least one more deserving candidate to clear a round. At the same time it will allow a greater opening for the weaker nations to compete in the sport.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own and in no way represent Bettor.com's official editorial policy.
Tags: